Gilles Duceppe

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the budget confirms that women are not the Conservative government's priority. There is no employment insurance reform to help women, when they have the most difficulty accessing that system. There is no tax credit improvement for informal caregivers, the majority of whom are women. Nothing for the guaranteed income supplement, while poverty strikes more women than men, especially among seniors. And finally, with the pretext of balancing the budget, the government refuses to resolve the pay equity issue.

On this International Women's Day, will the Prime Minister admit that improving the socio-economic status of women is the least of his concerns?

[Speech from the Throne, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just proved that he has not spoken to very many Quebeckers. Had he travelled around Quebec, that is not the message he would have heard.

In Copenhagen, the Conservative government spoke with a single voice on behalf of Canada, but not on behalf of Quebec. It did the same thing with the throne speech, in which it promised next to nothing for the fight against climate change.

In his speech, the Prime Minister claimed to be a leader when it comes to environmental issues. He certainly deserves an Oscar for creativity, but will he admit that, in reality, he answers to the oil companies and the nuclear industry?

[Speech from the Throne, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne made it obvious that the government did not recalibrate a thing during prorogation. It is clearer than ever that the Conservative vision is out of step with Quebeckers' values and priorities. The government used the speech to reiterate its plan to create a Canada-wide securities commission. It also indicated that it wants to eliminate the gun registry and reminded us that it intends to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons.

How can the Prime Minister have the gall to say that he is defending the interests of the Quebec nation when all of his political choices are bad for Quebec?

[Afghanistan, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about a single incident, but the report says, “it happened in the past”. The government says that this information was public for a long time, but on Tuesday, it said the opposite in the House. It takes a lot of nerve to say things like that. The Prime Minister is thumbing his nose at Canadians, our soldiers and this House. It makes no sense.

We have been asking the minister questions for months, even years, but he did not even have the sense to check his facts, to ask questions and to investigate. And he wants us to believe everything he says? He is not to be trusted. He needs to accept his responsibilities. He needs to prove that he is worthy of his position.

[Afghanistan, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report drafted by a commander who was in Afghanistan in June 2006, detainees were photographed before being transferred to Afghan authorities to provide evidence of abuse because, as the report says, "it happened in the past”.

How are we supposed to believe the Minister of National Defence, who has hidden the truth and done his utmost to cover up the fact that Canada was transferring prisoners when he had evidence that they might be subject to torture? When will the Prime Minister demand the minister's resignation?

[Afghanistan, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces did not act improperly; the government did. This government has used the troops for purely political gains. It has shown utter disdain for the soldiers, their families, the diplomatic corps and members of the opposition. No one trusts this government any more.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and call a public inquiry to shed light on this affair?

[Afghanistan, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, now we know that the Minister of National Defence has been hiding the truth about Afghan detainees all along. The Chief of the Defence Staff has confirmed that in May 2006 an Afghan detainee had been transferred and tortured and that he was even photographed before being transferred because there were suspicions that he would be tortured.

Is the Prime Minister going to take the side of the Minister of National Defence or is he going to take responsibility and demand that the minister resign?

[The Environment, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed to say the same thing as Pauline Marois, but I would be ashamed to misrepresent the interests of Quebec.

Efforts made between 1990 and 2006 by paper and aluminum manufacturers in Quebec to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions have been completely ignored by Canada. Quebec's environment minister has said she is disappointed in the federal government.

How can the government have the nerve to tell us it is representing Quebec in Copenhagen, when Ottawa is misrepresenting everything Quebec proposes?

[The Environment, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the political lieutenant for Quebec said he did not have any lessons to learn from anyone when it comes to managing the Canadian federation. Let us take a closer look.

While Quebec takes 1990 as the reference year, the federal government uses 2006. While Quebec has decided to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, the federal government sets a 3% reduction target.

Is that how the political lieutenant for Quebec manages the Canadian federation for the federal government, against the interests of Quebec?

[The Environment, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Quebec is not represented by this government in Copenhagen because the Canadian government's position goes against Quebec's interests. It could not be clearer. Just look at the position of this government, which is supported by the oil companies and defends Alberta to the detriment of Quebec.

How can token Quebeckers tell us the opposite in this House?